JOHN EDWARDS: A.K.A. Mr. uhhmm..."SMITH"
I usually don't pay much attention to anything that comes from the pages of the National Inquirer, but this week I decided to make a "change". Get it? "Change?" When word leaked about the Inquirer's impending story about John Edwards' alleged affair and resulting "love child", it wasn't the story itself that I found interesting. In fact, I immediately assumed it was just another headline designed to grab the attention of old ladies in the checkout line at the grocery store. But then I started to give it some thought.
The Inquirer is a paper that is no stranger to litigation. In fact, it has lost more than one lawsuit in recent years costing them hundreds of millions of dollars, as well as credibility. So that begs the question: If you were going to make up stories about someone famous, would you pick a famous trial lawyer? Would you risk the company wad going after someone who has become a multi-millionaire by taking apart billion dollar industries in a courtroom? Would you make up stories about someone who is as closely watched and documented as a Vice Presidential candidate? I liken this to me picking a fight with Kimbo Slice.
Then there is the Edwards angle as well. If you were falsely accused of sleeping around and fathering a child illegitimately, wouldn't you fight for your reputation? Wouldn't you fight for your marriage? Wouldn't your first order of business be a press conference where you tell the public that you are submitting DNA test swabs and making the results public as soon as they are returned? Wouldn't your second order of business be to tell the media that your team of cut-throat attorneys are busy starting the litigation process as we speak? Wouldn't you be the next owner of the National Inquirer?
Strangely, this has not been Edwards' reaction as of yet. Either the Inquirer has made the biggest mistake in judgement in the history of the printed word, or there is something to this story. The media's silence is deafening, but not surprising. That makes me wonder if they knew something about Obama's VP choice that we didn't.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
OVER-EXPOSED
I have often ranted about liberal bias in the media, maybe out of frustration, or maybe just to get the word out and shed a little light on it. My wife thinks it's therapeutic. As I watch Obama-mania unfold in front of me, I find that there are enough examples of media bias to fill my hard drive. The most difficult thing about writing about the Obamafication of the media is trying to decide what to mention and what not to mention. Otherwise, my articles would be too long to keep the reader interested. Keeping that in mind, I'm going to stick with some of the more recent examples.
Let's start with the obvious. Barak Obama added to his 143 days of experience this week by taking a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, let's say that by itself, that weren't a publicity stunt. Why would no less than three major networks have their heavy hitters coincidentally stationed there as well? After all, they were nowhere to be found when McCain traveled there.
As this was going on, the New York Times pitched-in to help the "Hope-meister" by publishing an article he wrote, while simultaneously rejecting one from McCain. No bias there I'm sure.
The most glaring example of the media being in B.O.'s corner is what you don't see. For example, you don't see reporters ask him why one week he says the war in Iraq is a "distraction", then the next week he says Iraq is a "front in the war on terror". You don't see reporters ask why he believes the reduction of violence in Iraq is a result of decisions made by tribal forces, instead of the U.S. military kicking their asses. Basically, down-playing the effectiveness of their sacrifices...while in their theater of battle. That must be the "audacity" I keep hearing about.
You don't see reporters asking Obama why he consistently chooses the word "end" rather than "win" when referring to his future plans for Iraq. You don't see reporters asking him how raising taxes on fuel and the companies that produce it will lower the cost of fuel. And then there is my personal favorite. After nearly eight years of watching all corners of the media specially the entertainment wing) skewer President Bush for his mis-pronunciations, and sloppy speaking style, I find it a little strange that people aren't making fun of Obama's verbal crutches as well. There are times when I'm not sure if I'm watching Barak Obama or Mel Tillis. Yet the Late Night TV shows can't seem to find comedy in that. I gave up watching The Daily Show years ago, but I'm willing to bet that Jon Stewart hasn't spent much time on the walking punchline that is B.O.'s off-prompter speaking style.
It's all good though. Obama will continue to threaten our relationship with Pakistan and Israel before even setting foot in the Whitehouse, and the Press will continue to treat him as a brilliant statesman. The left will continue to deny there's a liberal bias in the media, and the right will continue to shut out of the conversation. And as Journey sang so long ago, "the wheel in the sky keeps on turning".
I have often ranted about liberal bias in the media, maybe out of frustration, or maybe just to get the word out and shed a little light on it. My wife thinks it's therapeutic. As I watch Obama-mania unfold in front of me, I find that there are enough examples of media bias to fill my hard drive. The most difficult thing about writing about the Obamafication of the media is trying to decide what to mention and what not to mention. Otherwise, my articles would be too long to keep the reader interested. Keeping that in mind, I'm going to stick with some of the more recent examples.
Let's start with the obvious. Barak Obama added to his 143 days of experience this week by taking a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, let's say that by itself, that weren't a publicity stunt. Why would no less than three major networks have their heavy hitters coincidentally stationed there as well? After all, they were nowhere to be found when McCain traveled there.
As this was going on, the New York Times pitched-in to help the "Hope-meister" by publishing an article he wrote, while simultaneously rejecting one from McCain. No bias there I'm sure.
The most glaring example of the media being in B.O.'s corner is what you don't see. For example, you don't see reporters ask him why one week he says the war in Iraq is a "distraction", then the next week he says Iraq is a "front in the war on terror". You don't see reporters ask why he believes the reduction of violence in Iraq is a result of decisions made by tribal forces, instead of the U.S. military kicking their asses. Basically, down-playing the effectiveness of their sacrifices...while in their theater of battle. That must be the "audacity" I keep hearing about.
You don't see reporters asking Obama why he consistently chooses the word "end" rather than "win" when referring to his future plans for Iraq. You don't see reporters asking him how raising taxes on fuel and the companies that produce it will lower the cost of fuel. And then there is my personal favorite. After nearly eight years of watching all corners of the media specially the entertainment wing) skewer President Bush for his mis-pronunciations, and sloppy speaking style, I find it a little strange that people aren't making fun of Obama's verbal crutches as well. There are times when I'm not sure if I'm watching Barak Obama or Mel Tillis. Yet the Late Night TV shows can't seem to find comedy in that. I gave up watching The Daily Show years ago, but I'm willing to bet that Jon Stewart hasn't spent much time on the walking punchline that is B.O.'s off-prompter speaking style.
It's all good though. Obama will continue to threaten our relationship with Pakistan and Israel before even setting foot in the Whitehouse, and the Press will continue to treat him as a brilliant statesman. The left will continue to deny there's a liberal bias in the media, and the right will continue to shut out of the conversation. And as Journey sang so long ago, "the wheel in the sky keeps on turning".
Thursday, July 17, 2008
LIBERALISM: THE REAL MENTAL DISORDER
When I wrote my book, I opened by comparing my former liberal tendencies to having a sickness. Four years after writing that chapter, I find that I was more right than I even knew. As it turns out, liberalism really is a sickness, a mental disorder to be exact.
Think about it. If you consider how liberalism is applied to issues today, and the end result of doing so, you can only draw the conclusion that liberalism is akin to schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, or maybe autism.
A liberal will decry racism, but turn around and support racist policies such as affirmative action.
A liberal will not say a word when a woman kills her baby out of convenience, but has a cow when a murderer is sentenced to death.
A liberal claims to want an end to poverty, but villainieses those who become successful.
A liberal claims to want an end to poverty, but votes for those who are known to raise taxes.
A liberal claims to want an end to poverty, but supports policies like ethanol gasoline, and not drilling for oil...both of which raise the cost of pretty much everything.
A liberal complains about human rights abuses, but scorns the US military when they kill the abusers.
A liberal rails against imperialism and government power, but supports any policy that puts more power in the hands of government.
A liberal will harp about freedom of speech, but only speech they agree with.
A liberal will decry intervention in the affairs of other countries like Iraq, but demands intervention in Darfur and Tibet.
A liberal will demand something be done about North Korea's nukes, after voting against a missile defense system here in the US.
A liberal assumes intellectual superiority, but can't tell you what Obamma's policies are, don't know why we're in Iraq, thinks corporations pay taxes, thinks higher taxes on gas will bring down the price of gas, thinks the Earth's temperature didn't change until the automobile was invented, and thinks we can control the weather with lightbulbs and crappy cars.
These are only a few examples of how liberalism defies logic and reason, which are signs of mental disorder.
When I wrote my book, I opened by comparing my former liberal tendencies to having a sickness. Four years after writing that chapter, I find that I was more right than I even knew. As it turns out, liberalism really is a sickness, a mental disorder to be exact.
Think about it. If you consider how liberalism is applied to issues today, and the end result of doing so, you can only draw the conclusion that liberalism is akin to schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, or maybe autism.
A liberal will decry racism, but turn around and support racist policies such as affirmative action.
A liberal will not say a word when a woman kills her baby out of convenience, but has a cow when a murderer is sentenced to death.
A liberal claims to want an end to poverty, but villainieses those who become successful.
A liberal claims to want an end to poverty, but votes for those who are known to raise taxes.
A liberal claims to want an end to poverty, but supports policies like ethanol gasoline, and not drilling for oil...both of which raise the cost of pretty much everything.
A liberal complains about human rights abuses, but scorns the US military when they kill the abusers.
A liberal rails against imperialism and government power, but supports any policy that puts more power in the hands of government.
A liberal will harp about freedom of speech, but only speech they agree with.
A liberal will decry intervention in the affairs of other countries like Iraq, but demands intervention in Darfur and Tibet.
A liberal will demand something be done about North Korea's nukes, after voting against a missile defense system here in the US.
A liberal assumes intellectual superiority, but can't tell you what Obamma's policies are, don't know why we're in Iraq, thinks corporations pay taxes, thinks higher taxes on gas will bring down the price of gas, thinks the Earth's temperature didn't change until the automobile was invented, and thinks we can control the weather with lightbulbs and crappy cars.
These are only a few examples of how liberalism defies logic and reason, which are signs of mental disorder.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
FOR ALMA
One of the pitfalls of being an unknown writer is the great lengths you go to in order to get your name out there. On a limited income, you have to be creative as opposed to simply hiring a publicist. You also have to be willing to put yourself in situations that would normally make you pray for food poisoning. One example of this is my home town's annual "sidewalk sale days" weekend. It's pretty much what it sounds like. The local businesses, churches, and charities hock their wares out on the sidewalk in hopes of capitalizing on the "festival atmosphere". For an anti-socialite like myself, attending, much-less participating in this function is a lot like something you might do when you lose a bet. But when my marketing director (my wife) tells me to do something, I've found that it's easier to obey.
The day started as I expected. Setting up my card table and arranging my books and displays became the precursor to setting in the sun and watching the huddled masses walk by all day. The day was un-eventful with the exception of a guy who mistook my book for a pro-Hitler rant. After he invited me to join his new chapter of the Aryan Nation, I had to explain to him that I was the polar opposite of a racist. He went on his merry way and I went back to trying not to die of boredom. Until Alma stopped by.
Alma could best be described as the classic American sweet old lady. She could easily have been selected to appear in any AARP, or Medic Alert add campaign. She stopped by to see what I was selling and began to ask me about my book. Then she made the mistake of asking me who I was going to vote for in November. It was all down hill from there.
Being an Obamma fan, she was slightly offended when I told her that he was wrong on every issue. The random issue I used as an example was global warming. Apparently, I should have picked any other issue because this one really hit a nerve, and I was not there to upset elderly women. Soon, I was debating a sweet old lady about global warming in the "public square"...literally.
Her main point was the idea that if there is even the tiniest, most minuscule chance that there might be a hint of environmental danger facing our planet, then we have a duty to throw logic and reason out the window and implement policies that even my four year old daughter would see as bad ideas. Or something like that.
I countered by asking her why the first ice age melted when man had not yet industrialized. She countered by telling me that that had nothing to do with anything and that I needed to learn more about global warming before I formed my opinion. It was at that point that I could tell that she had bought into the Al Gore hysteria hook line and sinker. She was so passionate about saving the world for the next generation, that my many counter-points were falling on deaf ears. I pictured Al Gore laughing while sitting on a pile of money that he swindled from elderly folks by scaring them into opening their coin purses, just as any other con artist would do.
Luckily, Alma's husband came by to retrieve her. I shook her hand and invited her to contact me if she ever wanted to continue the conversation. I magnanimously offered my personal E-mail address and we parted smiling.
That one experience reminded me that liberals are not always people that are filled with hate and disgust for their country. Sometimes they are just regular people who have been swindled and taken advantage of. I will always believe that liberalism is a mental disorder, but I also know that it can be nothing more than a simple con job as well.
One of the pitfalls of being an unknown writer is the great lengths you go to in order to get your name out there. On a limited income, you have to be creative as opposed to simply hiring a publicist. You also have to be willing to put yourself in situations that would normally make you pray for food poisoning. One example of this is my home town's annual "sidewalk sale days" weekend. It's pretty much what it sounds like. The local businesses, churches, and charities hock their wares out on the sidewalk in hopes of capitalizing on the "festival atmosphere". For an anti-socialite like myself, attending, much-less participating in this function is a lot like something you might do when you lose a bet. But when my marketing director (my wife) tells me to do something, I've found that it's easier to obey.
The day started as I expected. Setting up my card table and arranging my books and displays became the precursor to setting in the sun and watching the huddled masses walk by all day. The day was un-eventful with the exception of a guy who mistook my book for a pro-Hitler rant. After he invited me to join his new chapter of the Aryan Nation, I had to explain to him that I was the polar opposite of a racist. He went on his merry way and I went back to trying not to die of boredom. Until Alma stopped by.
Alma could best be described as the classic American sweet old lady. She could easily have been selected to appear in any AARP, or Medic Alert add campaign. She stopped by to see what I was selling and began to ask me about my book. Then she made the mistake of asking me who I was going to vote for in November. It was all down hill from there.
Being an Obamma fan, she was slightly offended when I told her that he was wrong on every issue. The random issue I used as an example was global warming. Apparently, I should have picked any other issue because this one really hit a nerve, and I was not there to upset elderly women. Soon, I was debating a sweet old lady about global warming in the "public square"...literally.
Her main point was the idea that if there is even the tiniest, most minuscule chance that there might be a hint of environmental danger facing our planet, then we have a duty to throw logic and reason out the window and implement policies that even my four year old daughter would see as bad ideas. Or something like that.
I countered by asking her why the first ice age melted when man had not yet industrialized. She countered by telling me that that had nothing to do with anything and that I needed to learn more about global warming before I formed my opinion. It was at that point that I could tell that she had bought into the Al Gore hysteria hook line and sinker. She was so passionate about saving the world for the next generation, that my many counter-points were falling on deaf ears. I pictured Al Gore laughing while sitting on a pile of money that he swindled from elderly folks by scaring them into opening their coin purses, just as any other con artist would do.
Luckily, Alma's husband came by to retrieve her. I shook her hand and invited her to contact me if she ever wanted to continue the conversation. I magnanimously offered my personal E-mail address and we parted smiling.
That one experience reminded me that liberals are not always people that are filled with hate and disgust for their country. Sometimes they are just regular people who have been swindled and taken advantage of. I will always believe that liberalism is a mental disorder, but I also know that it can be nothing more than a simple con job as well.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
SENORE OBAMMA
I'm trying very hard to not let my blog become just another outlet for Obamma-bashing. Unfortunately, B.O. keeps saying things that are fit for nothing more than ridicule. Today was no exception.
He claimed to not understand why people want English to be the official language of America. For once, he said something that I agree with...he "don't understand". While lamenting his puzzlement, he said that he too believes that immigrants should learn English and then went on to claim that "they will". I don't know what planet he's talking about, but here on Earth immigrants (especially Hispanics) are making little to no effort to learn our language. But that's for another post.
Today, I would like to offer my teaching services and explain to Senator Obamma why some of us "bitter clingers" want English to be our official language.
First, I don't have time to learn the hundred-or-so languages of the many people who immigrate here. I doubt that the rest of the population does either. Wouldn't it make more sense to require our new citizens to each learn just one new language?
Second, if you look at all of our founding documents, they are all written in one language. Would you like to take a guess as to what that language is? If you guessed French, you are a big fat loser. If our founding fathers would have wanted Spanish to be our official language, they would have written the Declaration of Independence in Spanish.
Third, though there are people from around the globe who are bi-lingual, the most popular second language spoken in other countries is English. There is a reason for that. People recognize English as the language most likely to help you become successful in life. It allows you to have an advantage over non-English speakers because it is the key to navigating in so many countries.
Fourth, it's just the best way to get so many people from so many places on the same page with their new countrymen. In my line of work, I see it all the time. I might be working with three different people from three different countries, but we can all communicate because we all speak the same language...English.
I guess B.O.'s vast experience in the Senate (143 days) did not provide him with the understanding that pretty-much any average truck driver like myself seems to have. Maybe Obamma should learn a few things about the country he wants to be President of, before he lectures us about what we need to learn.
I'm trying very hard to not let my blog become just another outlet for Obamma-bashing. Unfortunately, B.O. keeps saying things that are fit for nothing more than ridicule. Today was no exception.
He claimed to not understand why people want English to be the official language of America. For once, he said something that I agree with...he "don't understand". While lamenting his puzzlement, he said that he too believes that immigrants should learn English and then went on to claim that "they will". I don't know what planet he's talking about, but here on Earth immigrants (especially Hispanics) are making little to no effort to learn our language. But that's for another post.
Today, I would like to offer my teaching services and explain to Senator Obamma why some of us "bitter clingers" want English to be our official language.
First, I don't have time to learn the hundred-or-so languages of the many people who immigrate here. I doubt that the rest of the population does either. Wouldn't it make more sense to require our new citizens to each learn just one new language?
Second, if you look at all of our founding documents, they are all written in one language. Would you like to take a guess as to what that language is? If you guessed French, you are a big fat loser. If our founding fathers would have wanted Spanish to be our official language, they would have written the Declaration of Independence in Spanish.
Third, though there are people from around the globe who are bi-lingual, the most popular second language spoken in other countries is English. There is a reason for that. People recognize English as the language most likely to help you become successful in life. It allows you to have an advantage over non-English speakers because it is the key to navigating in so many countries.
Fourth, it's just the best way to get so many people from so many places on the same page with their new countrymen. In my line of work, I see it all the time. I might be working with three different people from three different countries, but we can all communicate because we all speak the same language...English.
I guess B.O.'s vast experience in the Senate (143 days) did not provide him with the understanding that pretty-much any average truck driver like myself seems to have. Maybe Obamma should learn a few things about the country he wants to be President of, before he lectures us about what we need to learn.
Friday, July 4, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO CITY HALL
(Morning at San Francisco City Hall): "Next." "Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.""Names?" "Tim and Jim Jones." "Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance." "Yes, we're brothers." "Brothers? You can't get married." "Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?" "Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!" "Incest? No, we are not gay." "Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?" "For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects." "But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've beendenied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman." "Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim." "And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?" "All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."
"Hi. We are here to get married." "Names?" "John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson." "Who wants to marry whom?" "We all want to marry each other." "But there are four of you!" "That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship." "But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples." "So you 're discriminating against bisexuals!" "No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples." "Since when are you standing on tradition?" "Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere." "Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!" "All right, all right. Next."
"Hello, I'd like a marriage license." "In what names?" "David Deets." "And the other man?" "That's all. I want to marry myself." "Marry yourself? What do you mean?" "Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."
"That does it! I quit!!!!!
I Didn't write this, but I like it enough to pass it on.
(Morning at San Francisco City Hall): "Next." "Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.""Names?" "Tim and Jim Jones." "Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance." "Yes, we're brothers." "Brothers? You can't get married." "Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?" "Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!" "Incest? No, we are not gay." "Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?" "For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects." "But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've beendenied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman." "Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim." "And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?" "All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."
"Hi. We are here to get married." "Names?" "John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson." "Who wants to marry whom?" "We all want to marry each other." "But there are four of you!" "That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship." "But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples." "So you 're discriminating against bisexuals!" "No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples." "Since when are you standing on tradition?" "Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere." "Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!" "All right, all right. Next."
"Hello, I'd like a marriage license." "In what names?" "David Deets." "And the other man?" "That's all. I want to marry myself." "Marry yourself? What do you mean?" "Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."
"That does it! I quit!!!!!
Monday, June 30, 2008
DIVERSITY
Every now and then, I like to throw out a random topic that may or may not be making the media rounds. Tonight's is diversity.
Diversity is one of those things that sound good on paper and appeals to those who aren't burdened by thought. The diversity police tell us that certain groups of people need to be represented in certain quantities in order to...well, I'm not really sure exactly why. Something to do with equality I think. But that really doesn't make sense. After all, we are not all equal. Some of us are tall, some are short. Some of us are male, others are female. Some of us can lift heavy objects, others can do calculus. There are nice people, and mean people. There are motivated folks, and total slackers. Even with only these few factors, how would you go about pigeon-holing these differences into neat little groups?
Add in other factors such as personal preferences, athletic ability, personality, or personal philosophy and then you have an impossible combination of diversities to sort and segregate. So even with such an impossible equation of human differences, guess how a typical liberal decides to divide us up. Skin color and/or gender.
Of all the ways to figure out who may or may not be best to fill a certain role, liberals choose something as pointless as the color of one's skin. Then, when a biological difference may actually need to be considered, liberals turn a blind eye.
Think about it. Imagine being being put into a burning building. Your only means of rescue is a panel on the wall. The panel has two buttons. One marked "male firefighter", and the other marked "female firefighter". Which would a reasonable person choose? The "male firefighter" of coarse. Especially if you're around the 200 lb area. A 200 lb liberal would get hung-up on political correctness and push the "female button"...and along with the petite firefighter, burn to death.
If the buttons were marked "black firefighter" and "white firefighter", it wouldn't matter which one you push. Or does it?
That might depend on whether or not affirmative action was involved. If not, your chances of being pulled out of the fire are probably even. If so, your choice is not as clear. Affirmative action demands that people be considered for jobs and other acceptances according to the color of their skin, not the content of their character...wait a minute. Didn't someone have a dream about that very thing never happening again? Oh yeah, Dr. Martin Luther King.
You see, affirmative action sends a mixed message to everyone involved. First, it tells the black man that he's a victim, simply by being born. It then assumes that a black guy couldn't possibly make it in life on his own merit. But then it also assumes that a black guy can excel in any role simply by being put there via affirmative action. So when he arrives at a job or class that he was never properly trained for, his less-than-stellar performance is automatically chalked up to blacks being less capable. In reality, he was probably no more or less capable than anyone else, he was just sped through the system to accommodate some vague diversity scheme.
In the real world, affirmative action is nothing more than a government imposed policy that does nothing more than insult blacks by implying they are in need of help...therefore, inferior. Of course, this does nothing to advance relations between blacks and whites.
Diversity should never be a goal. By rights, it should be nothing more than an interesting happenstance. In fact, if you're truly not a racist, you won't consider it at all.
As I listen to Senator Obamma try to sound educated on the issues of the day, I can't help but wonder where he would be today had affirmative action never existed. After all, his total lack of merit, understanding of the issues, and qualifications would have kept him far away from the Senate. But I'm sure that I am wrong about that, because that would mean that the Democrat party is inherently racist. And that would be crazy talk.
Every now and then, I like to throw out a random topic that may or may not be making the media rounds. Tonight's is diversity.
Diversity is one of those things that sound good on paper and appeals to those who aren't burdened by thought. The diversity police tell us that certain groups of people need to be represented in certain quantities in order to...well, I'm not really sure exactly why. Something to do with equality I think. But that really doesn't make sense. After all, we are not all equal. Some of us are tall, some are short. Some of us are male, others are female. Some of us can lift heavy objects, others can do calculus. There are nice people, and mean people. There are motivated folks, and total slackers. Even with only these few factors, how would you go about pigeon-holing these differences into neat little groups?
Add in other factors such as personal preferences, athletic ability, personality, or personal philosophy and then you have an impossible combination of diversities to sort and segregate. So even with such an impossible equation of human differences, guess how a typical liberal decides to divide us up. Skin color and/or gender.
Of all the ways to figure out who may or may not be best to fill a certain role, liberals choose something as pointless as the color of one's skin. Then, when a biological difference may actually need to be considered, liberals turn a blind eye.
Think about it. Imagine being being put into a burning building. Your only means of rescue is a panel on the wall. The panel has two buttons. One marked "male firefighter", and the other marked "female firefighter". Which would a reasonable person choose? The "male firefighter" of coarse. Especially if you're around the 200 lb area. A 200 lb liberal would get hung-up on political correctness and push the "female button"...and along with the petite firefighter, burn to death.
If the buttons were marked "black firefighter" and "white firefighter", it wouldn't matter which one you push. Or does it?
That might depend on whether or not affirmative action was involved. If not, your chances of being pulled out of the fire are probably even. If so, your choice is not as clear. Affirmative action demands that people be considered for jobs and other acceptances according to the color of their skin, not the content of their character...wait a minute. Didn't someone have a dream about that very thing never happening again? Oh yeah, Dr. Martin Luther King.
You see, affirmative action sends a mixed message to everyone involved. First, it tells the black man that he's a victim, simply by being born. It then assumes that a black guy couldn't possibly make it in life on his own merit. But then it also assumes that a black guy can excel in any role simply by being put there via affirmative action. So when he arrives at a job or class that he was never properly trained for, his less-than-stellar performance is automatically chalked up to blacks being less capable. In reality, he was probably no more or less capable than anyone else, he was just sped through the system to accommodate some vague diversity scheme.
In the real world, affirmative action is nothing more than a government imposed policy that does nothing more than insult blacks by implying they are in need of help...therefore, inferior. Of course, this does nothing to advance relations between blacks and whites.
Diversity should never be a goal. By rights, it should be nothing more than an interesting happenstance. In fact, if you're truly not a racist, you won't consider it at all.
As I listen to Senator Obamma try to sound educated on the issues of the day, I can't help but wonder where he would be today had affirmative action never existed. After all, his total lack of merit, understanding of the issues, and qualifications would have kept him far away from the Senate. But I'm sure that I am wrong about that, because that would mean that the Democrat party is inherently racist. And that would be crazy talk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
